visionviper Posted May 2, 2007 Posted May 2, 2007 Info on 8800 Ultra $830! Ouch! Hopefully soon we will see the release date/tech specs of the 8900GTX. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted May 2, 2007 Posted May 2, 2007 yea, video card manufacturers better get a move on, the games out today are way too advanced for these puny video cards. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SPQQKY Posted May 2, 2007 Posted May 2, 2007 yea, video card manufacturers better get a move on, the games out today are way too advanced for these puny video cards. ? I'm running new games with a 7950GT, hope an $800 card can too..........:confused: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted May 2, 2007 Posted May 2, 2007 I don't know, I really doubt it.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HITandRUN Posted May 2, 2007 Posted May 2, 2007 Yeah put STALKER on a 24" screen and the GTX goes down on the knees! If they want to charge that kind of cash they better come up with DDR4 smaller die and some more pipes and not just a speed boost! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
red930 Posted May 2, 2007 Posted May 2, 2007 Settle down, they're just gonna release this a month or two before the 8900s just to sucker a few people with money into buying them. Remember the 7800GTX 512? Then the 7900GTX came out for a couple hundred cheaper and was better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted May 2, 2007 Posted May 2, 2007 Is there anyone around here that sensed my sarcasm? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkorb Posted May 2, 2007 Posted May 2, 2007 i did! so hold off on that 8800gts 320mb for the 8900's? or.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uber-Noober Posted May 3, 2007 Posted May 3, 2007 This is wishful thinking I know guys so please spare me the smart-alecky answers to this. I DO know sinister economics are at play here. The game developers need to make better use of the existing hardware technology rather than counting on new beefier video card to overcome their sloppy programming. Can any of you reasonably state that STALKER looks THAT much better than Half Life 2: Lost Coast considering the almost obscenely different hardware requirements? Really? That much? Valve / Source is good code. STALKER, I'm not that impressed. Quake 4 is another piece of software that really uses smart coding with the hardware; it obviously takes advantage of dual core CPU's. With STALKER again, I'm not so sure...... Hands down the best graphics on any video game I have ever seen, is Gears of War for the Xbox 360 on 1080i. My jaw hit the floor when I played it on my friends TV (which is arguably awesome). Tom Clancy: Las Vegas, STALKER, are not even close. Not even in the same league. I played STALKER and Las Vegas (Xbox 360 as well) on my friends 8800gtx SLI system so please do not mock my system, I know its not state of the art, and not the system where I formulated my conclusion. And yes I know the 360 is much more sophisticated piece of hardware than anything created here by parts bought off newegg. There is no question that the Gears of War programming team wrote their code to optimize the hardware. So its not too unreasonable to expect that Ubisoft et al. can do the same with Crysis, Unreal Tournament 2k7, etc. Before you say that XBOX 360 is highly standardized so its easier to code for, how much different is ATI and nVidia's hardware from each other? Even if it is light years apart (which I doubt), please remember that Valve and ID had no problems optimizing their games for it. The existing hardware now can do much more than we think. The nVidia / ATI shareholders would rather us not to know this. I think my argument can be summed up by comparing HALO for the XBOX and the PC to show difference in how programming affects performance more than hardware. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentul Posted May 3, 2007 Posted May 3, 2007 Well, I haven't personally played Gears of War so I don't know what type of environment that game is set in, but STALKER is pretty open. I mean, each map is pretty big so it has tons of graphics to load at the same time hence the reason (I think) it's pretty demanding. So although if you look at everything carefully it doesn't look much better, if at all, compared to games like HL2: Lost Coast or Las Vegas, it has more to load on screen than those two games do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uber-Noober Posted May 3, 2007 Posted May 3, 2007 good point. But HALO has enormous worlds / levels and it was programmed efficiently. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SPQQKY Posted May 3, 2007 Posted May 3, 2007 The size of the map shouldn't matter as much, that's more determined by memory and the hard drive. The memory will hold the map info until it's needed to be drawn by the gpu. I agree with Mark, games like Quake4 look fantastic and doesn't demand as much from the system. Look at COD2, that game takes a toll from your system, yet doesn't look nearly as good as other games available that don't ask as much from your rig to run well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now